As with all conspiracies, the facts do not matter

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 12 2004 @ 12:04 PM
link   
As quoted from this article:
"The truth is out there - but many prefer a good conspiracy"
Link:
www.smh.com.au...

Excerpts:

"Modern-day conspiracy theories are the obverse side of the contemporary fascination with reality television. Addicts of reality TV come to believe that something which is essentially contrived is actually authentic. Conspiracy theorists examine the empirical evidence concerning an available event and assume it is fake.....

Conspiracy theories have considerable appeal, however, because they provide simplistic answers to an increasingly complex world. They are also, in a sense, uplifting - engendering a hope that if evil-doers can be quashed, then the likes of John Kennedy or Diana could still be with us. So expect conspiracists to thrive - with reality TV producers......"



Well ATS members....
I do believe that this author, as with many authors on conspiracy theories and those who "thrive on them" and/or have "perverse fascinations with them," feels that conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorists are virtually "tin-foil-hat" candidates.
What is your thoughts on this after reading what this author has to say?
Why have "conspiracy theories" gained so much momentum in the last half-decade or decade?
I mean, "conspiracy sites" and sites directed at a particular conspiracy are cropping up left and right these days....much more so than they used to crop up.

I found it rather strange and odd that the author of this article left out such conspiracies as:
The Pentagon and "Just where did Flight 77 go?"
David Rockefeller's Secret Hide-Away.
The Flight of TWA 800.
The Vince Foster Conspiracy.
Ron Brown Conspiracy.
The Assassination Attempt on Ronald Reagan.
Etc.

Express your thoughts and opinions on this fellow ATS'ers....because after reading this author's comments and others like him, they may not say it outright, but be assurded, they think it....that those who dwell in "conspiracy thoeries and such" are just seeking "simplistic answers to an increasingly complex world." Thats a pretty damning sentiment, don't you think?



regards
seekerof




posted on Jan, 12 2004 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Brilliant!!

Just love this!



posted on Jan, 12 2004 @ 12:09 PM
link   
The author needs a good smack. We're all here because we don't believe everything that we're force-fed by the media. I don't think we're seeking simple answers (if anything, many conspiracy theories seem to be extraordinarily complex) to anything- we're looking for the truth.

DE



posted on Jan, 12 2004 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Within the last decade or so the INTERNET was born. And even right now it's exponentially growing. So a lot more people every day choose to create new websites about their own personal view of conspiracies and a LOT more people every day get access to the WWW and learn about these theories that they didn't find in the public library a decade earlier.

That's at least a part of why it's growing. Aren't these theories simply QUESTIONING authority and saying "What if....". Sure many claim they know the truth, but the important aspect is the questioning part. When we stop questioning authority and this world, that's when we're pretty much brain-dead. You'd be surprised how many brain-dead people live in America and the world, who do NOT question any authority and believe everything is fine and dandy with the world, and no one is lying to them. Why would they? The president seems like such a nice guy, how could nice, simple, country boys like Bush lie to anyone? Nah, stupid conspiracy theorists!

Well brain-deadism is a disease!


That's just my 2 cents anyway.



posted on Jan, 12 2004 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
...that those who dwell in "conspiracy thoeries and such" are just seeking "simplistic answers to an increasingly complex world." Thats a pretty damning sentiment, don't you think?


It's about half right as most sweeping generalizations go. What must be acknowledged is that any conspiracy theorist (which may include investigative reporters) that are ever proven right...graduate from the ranks of theorist, and 'no longer count' in any empirical assessment of the success ratio of skeptics.

Were it not for Deepthroat (for example) Woodward & Burnstein may be more likely frustrated ATS members than acclaimed investigative reporters with a place in history. And all those nuts that said for years "Rush Limbaugh acts like he's on something" were even more scoffed for believing a National Enquirer article that said he WAS! For about 48 hours anyway until vindicated by mainstream media in it's usual laggard fashion.

So are the Conspiracy Theorists all crazy or just the advance guard of the truth? I'd say a little of each.



posted on Jan, 12 2004 @ 12:35 PM
link   
Lilblam:
"Aren't these theories simply QUESTIONING authority and saying "What if...."

Umm, no lilblam, most to many of these proposed "conspiracy theories" come flat out and make assertions and "claims of fact".....and then proceed to "fact the pieces" together. I see very little questioning and asking: "What if".

I'm not defending this author, because I have a tendency, as anyone, to "question authority" and think about the "going on's" behind what has or did transpire.
I presented the article to gather how the members of ATS thought on this, on what this author has sayed.
I present another article related to this that insinuates much as the above articl;e does on "conspiracy theories" and those who believe and dwell in them.

"Conspiracy Theories"
Link:
www.leadershipinstitute.org...

Excerpts:

"Since at least 1960, conspiracy theories which relate to politics have circulated widely. Such theories trap many otherwise smart people into years of inactivity, pessimism, and despair. The phenomenon is so common that it should be understood because it affects so many people who have leadership potential.....

A shelf of books has been published about alleged right-wing conspiracies, including massive documentation of all the links, down to details of who has lunch with whom.....

Make no mistake about it, there are some real conspiracies. Terrorists do conspire, but their murderous violence is evidence of their weakness, not of overwhelming strength. And terrorists themselves almost always come to a bad end. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union ran a large, centralized, deadly and effective conspiracy. But they proved to be not as smart, powerful or irresistible as some despondent conspiracy theorists claimed.

Most conspiracy theories make no more sense than those of crackpot cultist Lyndon LaRouche, who has argued loudly for years that the world trade in illegal drugs is managed by Queen Elizabeth II of England."



I agree though, the truth is out there and it will require loads of questioning and sourcing...the "truth" is always out there.....we do, after-all, have the X-Files to back us up on that, right?



regards
seekerof



posted on Jan, 12 2004 @ 12:36 PM
link   
From article:


As with all conspiracies, the facts do not matter.


This is most likely true. Unless, of course, he's referring to conspiracy theories, then that would make him incorrect.


Conspiracy theories have considerable appeal, however, because they provide simplistic answers to an increasingly complex world.


What?! This statement makes no sense. Conspiracy theories are even more complex than the 'supplied' truth. Wouldn't it be much more simplistic to accept Oswald's guilt as a 'sole assassin' and move on? I think so. The topic becomes even more complex when you try to supply other theories.

Does this guy really think there aren't powerful people in this world that conspire against others? Oh my. What's that about denying ignorance?


Then again, maybe Sesame Street characters are more of a danger than our political leaders and we're all deluded. Haha, please.



posted on Jan, 12 2004 @ 12:51 PM
link   
It's just weird month after month lately things that where considered a conspiracy theory turn out to be real. I can't remember a time when this has happened more then it is now. Kind of takes the fun out of it really. It was fun saying Jessica Lynch wasn’t what the pentagon painted her to be then it comes out we where right. It was fun saying Bush used the 9/11 as the pre text to start war in the middle east and day by day that is even coming true. I really don’t think it’s going to be long before Bush knew is mainstream news then shortly after that it might get darker the real truth might come out about everything. What the hell are we left with when conspiracy starts to become reality which it has over the last year an half? What will the American people do when confronted with the reality of just what our government, CIA, military, etc has been doing?



posted on Jan, 12 2004 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Great response aand all DD, but I certainly don't think that this is regulated to just solely the Amercian people.
There have been two mentions of this already....and I am certainly not busting can over this but if one checks, one will see that conspiracy thoerists are all over and that those who don't believe in those same "conspiracy thoery's" are all over.....

I would somewhat agree with what many have said here though.
But it is worthy to note how the "mainstream", everyday folk, world over, consider and view people who "dwell and believe" in "conspiracy thoeries" and such. I have tendency sometimes to think that what is "fact" to them is the same "fact" to us, yet it's not looked further into and is basically taken verbatim.



regards
seekerof



posted on Jan, 12 2004 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Articles like this are constant, usually in the silly season. People (and the media especially) like them because they give people comfort in their own perceptions, reassure them everyone who questions things like this are delusional loonies, and let them go scoffing on their ignorant way with a re-enforced idea of their own 'right thinking' ways.

The definition of what is commonly referred to as a conspiracy theory is becoming blurred as rebellious thinking and activism to actual deceit, lies, corruption, spin and general misinformation increases. (As the deceit, lies corruption, spin and general misinformation increases) They are just lumping these things together so that those political and socially minded ‘conspiracists’ can be lumped in with the loonies. There is no real media definition to fit them, and they don’t want to create one.



posted on Jan, 12 2004 @ 03:19 PM
link   
An interesting article, and some even more telling comments. How many of you are familiar with the dragon in Carl Sagan’s Garage?

To start with, I don’t disbelieve in conspiracies at all. They happen, just not as often as people think. Furthermore, they rarely remain secret for long. On the other hand, I have problems accepting the vast majority of conspiracy theories at face value. As I see it, most conspiracy theories have two main problems.

Overly complex:
Most conspiracy theories work to make the facts fit the theory. When that becomes impossible, the theory tends to develop an additional layer of complexity. I am a firm believer in the principle of Occam’s razor. For a dude living in the middle ages, Occam was pretty sharp. The basic tenet is as follows “one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.”
In other words, the simplest explanation that covers all of the facts is the best explanation. As it has been pointed out here, many conspiracy theories rely on very complex explanations for simple events.


Overly Simplistic:
Just as most conspiracy theories tend to be overly complex when explaining physical events, they also tend to be over simplistic when dealing with human behavior, emotions, and motivations. As it has also been pointed out, most conspiracy theories rely on cartoonishly evil “bad guys” (ala Boris Badenov) to work.

Now, that is not to say that there aren’t some seriously evil people out there. There are any number of Saddam Husseins and Ted Bundys out there, but they are a small fraction of a percentage point of humanity as a whole. The kind of large scale organized sociopathic behavior often attributed to the mythical Illuminati, NWO, or ____ (fill-in-the-blank) is too far removed from common every day human behavior to be believable.

For instance, how many serial killers have acted in concert with other serial killers? How many dictators have willingly shared power with other dictators? If there is one thing that has been constant through the years it is human behavior. Greed, vanity, avarice, as well as mercy, empathy, and selflessness, are constants among saints and sinners alike.




[Edited on 12-1-2004 by HowardRoark]



posted on Jan, 12 2004 @ 03:41 PM
link   
HowardRoark,
That Carl Sagan story: "The Dragon In My Garage"
is a meaningful and insightful read.


In some to most cases, the "overly complex" and the "overly simplistic" hits and describes our topic, conspiracy theories, in more ways than one. Nice observations.



regards
seekerof



posted on Jan, 14 2004 @ 06:54 PM
link   
damn, guess i was wrong all this time about these conspiracy theories and i'm just an overparanoid victim of reality television. guess i should just forget about the sh!tloads of evidence behind all these conspiracy theories too. damn, i feel so silly right about now.



posted on Jan, 14 2004 @ 08:07 PM
link   
If there were no lies and misconceptions, there would be no conspiracies-
And we would not be here wondering and seeking the truth.
Interesting topic, Seekerof.



posted on Jan, 14 2004 @ 08:57 PM
link   
I think this guy is a conspiracy himself or a spook,

this is what I found on thesydneyinstitute.com website:

Welcome to The Sydney Institute
The Sydney Institute is a privately funded current affairs forum which enjoys good relations with both sides of Australian politics. The Institute holds weekly forums, an annual dinner and occasional international conferences. All papers delivered to the Institute are published in The Sydney Papers which has a wide and influential circulation - including university, college and school libraries. The Institute also publishes The Sydney Institute Quarterly incorporating Media Watch (which commenced publication in 1988 and was first into the field of media watching in Australia).

The Sydney Institute holds a major annual dinner. The lecture is given by a speaker who has made an important contribution at an international or national level.

The Institute was opened on 23 August 1989 by New South Wales Premier Nick Greiner with supporting remarks from Bob Carr (then NSW Opposition Leader).

Australian Prime Minister John Howard has spoken at the Institute - as has Opposition leader Mark Latham. Speakers in recent years have included Peter Costello, Peter Doherty, Simone Young, Bob Carr, Peter Cosgrove, Sir Anthony Mason, Natasha Stott-Despoja, Kim Beazley, David Malouf, Jill Ker Conway, Philip Ruddock, Sharan Burrow, Tony Abbott, Alexander Downer, Lindsay Tanner, Chief Justice Murray Gleeson and Reserve Bank Governor Ian Macfarlane. A number of international figures have appeared on the Institute's platform - including Dick Cheney, Jung Chang, William Shawcross, James Kelly (currently the US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs), the late Alexander Dubcek, John Ralston Saul and Tariq Ali.

The Sydney Institute receives support from the Australian business community. Meredith Hellicar is the Institute's chairman, Rob Ferguson is the deputy chairman and Frank Conroy is treasurer. But supporters of the Institute extend beyond the business community and include editors, writers and members of the professions - as well as Australians who are interested in current affairs including economics.



posted on Jan, 15 2004 @ 01:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by THENEO
I think this guy is a conspiracy himself or a spook,

this is what I found on thesydneyinstitute.com website:

Welcome to The Sydney Institute
The Sydney Institute is a privately funded current affairs forum which enjoys good relations with both sides of Australian politics. The Institute holds weekly forums, an annual dinner and occasional international conferences. All papers delivered to the Institute are published in The Sydney Papers which has a wide and influential circulation - including university, college and school libraries. The Institute also publishes The Sydney Institute Quarterly incorporating Media Watch (which commenced publication in 1988 and was first into the field of media watching in Australia).

The Sydney Institute holds a major annual dinner. The lecture is given by a speaker who has made an important contribution at an international or national level.

The Institute was opened on 23 August 1989 by New South Wales Premier Nick Greiner with supporting remarks from Bob Carr (then NSW Opposition Leader).

Australian Prime Minister John Howard has spoken at the Institute - as has Opposition leader Mark Latham. Speakers in recent years have included Peter Costello, Peter Doherty, Simone Young, Bob Carr, Peter Cosgrove, Sir Anthony Mason, Natasha Stott-Despoja, Kim Beazley, David Malouf, Jill Ker Conway, Philip Ruddock, Sharan Burrow, Tony Abbott, Alexander Downer, Lindsay Tanner, Chief Justice Murray Gleeson and Reserve Bank Governor Ian Macfarlane. A number of international figures have appeared on the Institute's platform - including Dick Cheney, Jung Chang, William Shawcross, James Kelly (currently the US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs), the late Alexander Dubcek, John Ralston Saul and Tariq Ali.

The Sydney Institute receives support from the Australian business community. Meredith Hellicar is the Institute's chairman, Rob Ferguson is the deputy chairman and Frank Conroy is treasurer. But supporters of the Institute extend beyond the business community and include editors, writers and members of the professions - as well as Australians who are interested in current affairs including economics.






well spotted. man, is he hanging out with a great bunch of guys. foxes guarding the henhouse, again.

say, howard, if you like occam's razor(which i personally think is better suited to science than human relationships, BTW), than you should like my simple explanation of the one and only conspiracy .....pyramid power.



posted on Jan, 15 2004 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob

Originally posted by THENEO
I think this guy is a conspiracy himself or a spook,

. . .




well spotted. man, is he hanging out with a great bunch of guys. foxes guarding the henhouse, again.

say, howard, if you like occam's razor(which i personally think is better suited to science than human relationships, BTW), than you should like my simple explanation of the one and only conspiracy .....pyramid power.


To Neo, everyone is a spook.


Billybob, I never said that Occham’s Razor should apply to individual human relationships. My point was that in terms of explaining an event or a series of events, occam’s razor should apply. Remember Occham’s razor doesn’t require you to accept the simplest explanation, it requires you to accept the simplest explanation that fits all of the facts.

The best example of this are the so called “rods” found in videos. The simplest explanation is that they are images of insects, blurred from their rapid movement across the relatively slow frame rate of the video camera. The conspiracy fan will say that these are in fact an unknown and heretofore never discovered life form, possibly extra terrestrial in origin. This theory also needs an explanation of why these were never observed before and why no one has actually seen a “rod” with the naked eye.



posted on Jan, 15 2004 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by billybob

Originally posted by THENEO
I think this guy is a conspiracy himself or a spook,

. . .




well spotted. man, is he hanging out with a great bunch of guys. foxes guarding the henhouse, again.

say, howard, if you like occam's razor(which i personally think is better suited to science than human relationships, BTW), than you should like my simple explanation of the one and only conspiracy .....pyramid power.


To Neo, everyone is a spook.


Billybob, I never said that Occham’s Razor should apply to individual human relationships. My point was that in terms of explaining an event or a series of events, occam’s razor should apply. Remember Occham’s razor doesn’t require you to accept the simplest explanation, it requires you to accept the simplest explanation that fits all of the facts.

The best example of this are the so called “rods” found in videos. The simplest explanation is that they are images of insects, blurred from their rapid movement across the relatively slow frame rate of the video camera. The conspiracy fan will say that these are in fact an unknown and heretofore never discovered life form, possibly extra terrestrial in origin. This theory also needs an explanation of why these were never observed before and why no one has actually seen a “rod” with the naked eye.




at least, anybody who says they saw a rod has been thoroughly ridiculed and 'debunked'. video has been around since what?, ....the fifties? insects since like at least the forties(joke, not meant as discussion point). how come these rods are a recent phenomena? ( i don't believe or disbelieve in rods, it's just not clearly proven to me that they are insects. like chemtrails, i would need to see a difference in the technology of today which accounts for the different appearance of the visuals to be satisfied they don't exist.)

it is not to prudent to ignore the relationships and motives of the people mentioned above.



posted on Jan, 15 2004 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Most of the members here are not spooks but you are HowardR.



posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 11:40 PM
link   
Here is an article that speaks the opposite of the previous articles I posted. I am posting this for contrast purposes....any comments?

"I believe in conspiracies"
Link:
www.spectator.co.uk...

Excerpt:

"John Laughland says the real nutters are those who believe in al-Qa’eda and weapons of mass destruction.

Believing in conspiracy theories is rather like having been to a grammar school: both are rather socially awkward to admit. Although I once sat next to a sister-in-law of the Duke of Norfolk who agreed that you can’t believe everything you read in the newspapers, conspiracy theories are generally considered a rather repellent form of intellectual low-life, and their theorists rightfully the object of scorn and snobbery. Writing in the Daily Mail last week, the columnist Melanie Phillips even attacked conspiracy theories as the consequence of a special pathology, of the collapse in religious belief, and of a ‘descent into the irrational’. The implication is that those who oppose ‘the West’, or who think that governments are secretive and dishonest, might need psychiatric treatment."


But in the same token, please be aware that "The Spectator", after all, is owned by a Mr. Conrad M. Black......"a member of the Bilderberg Group."

Link:
www.namebase.org...




regards
seekerof

[Edited on 16-1-2004 by Seekerof]






top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join